IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I would say between the summer months of 2008, and the fall of 2009 I was following the 9/11 Truth movement with some amount of reverence. I was listening to Alex Jones on a daily basis (would download his podcast and listen at work), I was a member of several internet forums including Let's Roll 9/11, Prison Planet, and the Loose Change forum. I downloaded all copies of Loose Change, Truth Rising, and Zeitgeist. At one point, I even discussed the possibility of 9/11 being an "inside job" to a few co-workers and friends.

Why did I believe? This is a question I cannot really answer. To tell you the truth, I can only hypothesize because I can't really remember what brought me to believe what the 9/11 Truth Movement believed.

Maybe it was because the movie Zeitgeist had somewhat of an impact on me. I had never heard about any of the subject matter mentioned in that movie and it felt like I was finding out about something no one else knew. After all, there are some big claims made. Such big claims set to video have a way of luring in your average YouTube viewer.

Politically, I was disenfranchised by the Bush administration and I was really amazed how Washington DC was tending to foreign affairs and the economy. Why did I vote for this guy anyway? By the end of his presidency, George Bush seemed to not really care about the economy or anything else for that matter. So I really did not care for him at that point. However, the guy was always quick to discuss matters of war and foreign conflict. It was as if the man wanted to invoke war with every nation on the planet if he could get away with it. This got me not only disgusted but there were many times I had to raise an eyebrow or two.

I think the biggest lure was the internet itself. YouTube had opened a new world of social networking at that point, 9/11 Truth videos were easy to find and it didn't appear to me that anyone was creating videos that argued the case against 9/11 Truth so I felt there must be some validity to this so-called movement. This group had a disgust towards Bush that I could relate with as well.

It wasn't until my brother sent me a link to Michael Shermer's appearance on Larry King Live that my views were, shall we say, interrupted. Larry had a special about UFO's and the fascination with aliens, alien abductions, flying saucers, and the people who make claims about UFO's. Several people on this episode were convinced they witnessed a UFO or alien spacecraft at one point in their life yet later in the show Dr. Shermer came on and debunked all the claims that were made. He asked for physical or tangible evidence and no one could produce even a picture to back up their claims.

Granted, this had nothing to do with 9/11 Truth. Yet when looking at some of the other Michael Shermer videos listed, I noticed a video where he responded to a 9/11 Truther at one of his book signings. I decided to watch this video and upon listening to his answer I got very angry and agitated. Dr. Shermer explained that there is no way our government could kill it's own people and keep it secret. I begged to differ. He also addressed the controlled demolition theory by stating that it would take months if not years to rig those buildings for a controlled demolition. I begged to differ. Dr. Shermer's conclusion was that 9/11 happened the way it was explained back in 2001. Arabs hijacked planes and flew them into 3 targets, and the 4th target was foiled. I begged to differ. I was irate! How could that be? I've got other sources giving me different information. Michael Shermer cannot be serious.

In spring of 2009, I returned to school for my Bachelor's Degree. My major was Network Administration with an emphasis on Information Technology. Every class I took, for each assignment, I had to write a paper and it had to be formatted specifically in APA format. This means that I had to have references to all information included in my papers, I had to have a table of contents, running head, title page, and if I would quote anything directly I would have to include it in my list of references. It's a rather arduous process but it had to be done in order to avoid plagiarism.

A few classes and a few months later, I came across a video on YouTube of Mark Roberts (known as 'Gravy' here on JREF) getting frustrated with Alex Jones. I also found a video of a character by the name of Nathan Moulton who crossed paths with a passer-by known only on YouTube as dsglop. Mr. Roberts and dsglop passionately argued with Mr. Jones and Nathan Moulton. When discovering these videos, I decided to find out more especially since there was mention of a site that was authored by Mr. Roberts.

To make a long story short, Mark Roberts did his research. It was obvious that 9/11 Truthers had done not one lick of proper research. Mark knew how to reference, properly format, and outline his case paragraph by paragraph, just like what I was doing in school. I was impressed yet I was also mad at myself for being so stupid. The 9/11 Truth movement has yet to release anything substantial that backs up ANY claims they have made.

Dsglop, though not having written a paper, has done his share of 9/11 "Truth" debunking. I got to know this guy while I was studying for my Bachelor's and he does seem to have knowledge on world affairs and foreign relations. I can't say that he's right on all of his claims that retort 9/11 Truth but then again, no single prominent Truther has proven ANY of their own claims to be right or exact. The stuff that he gets wrong is trivial anyway - an example would be his statement about Mark Robert's profession.

I went back to Michael Shermer's YouTube profile. I found out he has written many books that are a decent supplement to proper research. I watched more of his videos that debunk certain junk sciences such as Remote Viewing, Fire walking, and bending spoons with your mind. Dr. Shermer explains quite plainly how there is a scientific method to the many discoveries in life. Physical, empirical, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is important when presenting conclusive research. You cannot just say what you believe happened is what happened or what you believe is what makes the world go around.

Knowing this, and learning about proper research to get my Bachelor's is what turned on the light for me. If you're going to make claims, you have to be able to back them up. You must provide references, and be able to explain those claims in your own words if you are asked to do so. If you cannot explain your claims, then you are only making a fool of yourself. This is what makes sense in the real world and is what drove the nail in the coffin for me with the 9/11 Truth movement.

Welcome back to the Dark Side. Be prepared to be called shill, agent, cointelpro, etc. Especially if you made any friends in the TM who are still truthers. They will turn on you as a proponent of the inside job in a heartbeat. Look up what they did to Charlie Vietch, former head of the UK Truth group The Love Police. He changed his mind after being taken on a "road trip" in the States, visiting NY and talking with people that had more expertise in the fields he questioned. Now he's shunned by everyone in the TM, was called a cointelpro, and that he was an infiltrator to sew seeds of doubt among the TM.

Welcome back to the Dark Side. Be prepared to be called shill, agent, cointelpro, etc. Especially if you made any friends in the TM who are still truthers. They will turn on you as a proponent of the inside job in a heartbeat. Look up what they did to Charlie Vietch, former head of the UK Truth group The Love Police. He changed his mind after being taken on a "road trip" in the States, visiting NY and talking with people that had more expertise in the fields he questioned. Now he's shunned by everyone in the TM, was called a cointelpro, and that he was an infiltrator to sew seeds of doubt among the TM.

Yes. I'm very well aware how they operate. I've been out of the Truther rat race for quite some time now. They are some of the most paranoid delusional people I have ever met and it was good timing to wake up and smell the coffee when I did. I sure as heck do not and will not want to become one of them!

Cool. Very well put and excellent insight for those of us who (like me perhaps) had the good fortune of finding James Randi at a young age and realizing how much crap there is out there, as well as discovering how to think critically.

If you can pass it on.

__________________Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Cool. Very well put and excellent insight for those of us who (like me perhaps) had the good fortune of finding James Randi at a young age and realizing how much crap there is out there, as well as discovering how to think critically.

If you can pass it on.

Thanks.

I would also like to add that, like Charlie Veitch, I was cold-shouldered by some prominent truthers including Phil Jayhan and Jason Douglass (who is the producer of the Alex Jones show).

It's funny.

They will talk about how they're only asking questions yet if you ask them any pressing questions, they will immediately ignore you, ban you from their website, or not respond to your emails. This is what happened with Phil and Jason. This is due to one reason - they really, truly have nothing to say.

Upon joining JREF, I was told there were truthers who post regularly in the Conspiracy theory subforums. For some odd reason, I thought there might be something different about them from other truthers. Boy was I wrong.

There can never be nor will there ever be a proper way to debate with these people. They are set in their ways, they believe what they believe and that is it! They cannot shed their belief system. The best thing to do is either ignore them or just make fun of them. It's too frustrating to even try to be rational.

Your story reminds me a bit of what happened to me when I was, umm, maybe a young teen. I had bought a book about the Bermuda Triangle at a used book store, and I was regaling my brother with all the amazing evidence it presented. He started asking pointed questions: Did the author actually support that point, or just say it? Can you think of any way the author could even know that this amazing bit of his story is true, or does he seem to be making things up (or repeating someone else who did)? Does this claim here make any sense to you?

It's hard for me to remember, but I think that at first, I had much the same reaction that I criticize in other people: Instead of treating the questions as legitimate, fair questions, I thought he was being mean to the writer and to me. After all, why would anyone put those things in a book if they weren't true? Gradually it dawned on me that if he had no way of knowing the things he put in the book, it really didn't matter whether he believed them or not.

So, how could I have been so dumb? Once I saw the point of asking pointed questions, I couldn't go back and remember what it was like not to ask. But, looking back on it, I can imagine it. I think human beings often function pretty well by evaluating the credibility of the people we're talking with rather than the quality of the evidence. If someone we trust tells us that it's raining, it's usually pointless or worse to demand verification. If someone we trust tells us that the house is on fire, we should probably leave. Although it didn't make objective sense for me to judge that the author was trustworthy -- especially for the purpose of learning about the Bermuda Triangle -- the psycho-logic makes some sense.

The cool thing about your story (and the point of mine) is that it shows that skepticism isn't just a personality trait; it involves skills that can be learned. That isn't to say that everyone is equally capable of learning them.

Well done and well written dc1971. Your summary deserves to be posted again.

Originally Posted by dc1971

Knowing this, and learning about proper research to get my Bachelor's is what turned on the light for me. If you're going to make claims, you have to be able to back them up. You must provide references, and be able to explain those claims in your own words if you are asked to do so.

Maybe not obvious, but the word I put in bold is the key to the above. I use the phrase honest research, but the intent is the same. Many CTists feel they are doing research by watching Loose Change or listening to Alex Jones. Don't get your information in an echo chamber. For many, that's surprisingly hard to do. Paranoia tendencies and an ego which pushes them to seek validation of their beliefs are but two barriers to honest/proper research.

The path you traveled and destination you reached is simple to describe but not easy to execute. Thanks for sharing.

__________________I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars.
Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe
Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

Thank you everyone for your kind words. And thank you ref for the link to the thread.

I've discovered a theme from many of the posts in that previous thread. A good amount of people on here have a resentment towards George Bush. I'm not surprised about such a resentment however it's quite appreciable that people let that resentment get the best of them.

This resentment can also be summed up through the wisdom of Yoda - "Anger leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side."

what brought me back was the Penn and Teller bullsh*t series (I will forever thank them) I know BS is entertainment and not %100 accurate.
However I saw how skeptisism worked and it took the guts to test my beliefs against evidence. I did what most cant, accepted that I was was wrong because the evidence said so.
but I cant get my friends to stop the presupposition that science and big brother are part of the conspiracy.

even though timetravel would be required to alter text books and change reality to match.

Last edited by Lt Rabbit; 24th April 2012 at 08:06 AM.
Reason: slight improvement on 5th grade english skills, apologies for thread necromancing

As an English teacher, I am delighted that your use of research and documentation skills helped bring you around.

Hey, we all see what we want to see in these stories.

RJB

Also great to see another fellow teacher.

I'm not a teacher myself but I come from a family of teachers and public administrators. And yes, I got some good references from them (particularly my parents) when gathering info as to why conspiracy theories are just wrong.

I was the same with UFOs until i did my Bachelors and starting to use the skills I had learnt to look at the cases again and well it was funny how the interiors of alien spaceships always had technology that mirrored the high tech of the decade it was reported in, reel to reel hard drives in the 70's microcomputers in the 80's things like that

Hey dc1971
I've been through the same process as you. It's astonishing how persuasive videos such as loose change and zeitgeist can be. When I watch them now, they look utterly ridiculous but when you watch them the first time, they are so convincing. They get you nodding from the start, and before you know it, you are nodding to everything they say.

This forum made me understand that the 9/11 truthers are wrong. You should definitely read Michael Shermer's chapter on conspiracy theories in his book The Believing Brain, if you haven't already. I'm sure you'd like it.

Hey dc1971
I've been through the same process as you. It's astonishing how persuasive videos such as loose change and zeitgeist can be. When I watch them now, they look utterly ridiculous but when you watch them the first time, they are so convincing. They get you nodding from the start, and before you know it, you are nodding to everything they say.

This forum made me understand that the 9/11 truthers are wrong. You should definitely read Michael Shermer's chapter on conspiracy theories in his book The Believing Brain, if you haven't already. I'm sure you'd like it.

I have read that book! And yes, Shermer hits it out of the park with conspiracy theories.

What should also trigger a raised eyebrow is to look back at the early days of the internet. Remember chain messages? You would receive an e-mail telling you not to lick envelopes because cock roaches lay their eggs on the adhesive or that Coca-cola is used to clean battery corrosion? All Loose Change and Zeitgeist did was raise the chain message bar.

Anyone can come up with this stuff and post it online and say it is fact. The question is, who will take initiative to decipher between BS and actual research.

And here is a good point. You will see people converted from fantasists to skeptics, but you will never see skeptics converted to fantasists.

__________________Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

Probably my first exposure into stupid was some old book i had bought at a carboot sale (I think) when I was 15 or something, I was really into UFO's and aliens at the time (I loved x-files) and it said the Bible's stories were actually about aliens. i entertained the idea as reasonable at the time and in retrospect, it still makes it make more sense.

I've been through the same process as you. It's astonishing how persuasive videos such as loose change and zeitgeist can be. When I watch them now, they look utterly ridiculous but when you watch them the first time, they are so convincing. They get you nodding from the start, and before you know it, you are nodding to everything they say.

In that way, it's similar to a lot of high pressure sales tactics. You go into it thinking you're not going to buy anything, and walk out an hour later with a used car, a time share in Cuba, and a lifetime subscription to Suckers Magazine, scratching your head, wondering how that happened.

First and foremost, people like Alex Jones are selling you something, and they'll use any tactic they can to get you to keep buying.

__________________Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

In that way, it's similar to a lot of high pressure sales tactics. You go into it thinking you're not going to buy anything, and walk out an hour later with a used car, a time share in Cuba, and a lifetime subscription to Suckers Magazine, scratching your head, wondering how that happened.

First and foremost, people like Alex Jones are selling you something, and they'll use any tactic they can to get you to keep buying.

It amazes me how there are people out there who take Alex seriously.

He is the worst-case scenario of Wag the Dog if there ever was one. It just blows my mind how he gets away with his style of news reporting.

He is the worst-case scenario of Wag the Dog if there ever was one. It just blows my mind how he gets away with his style of news reporting.

Not sure if I would classify it as news reporting. More like "Taking an obscure recently unclassified document and turning it into evidence of a mass conspiracy to put everyone in prison camps".

__________________Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

Not sure if I would classify it as news reporting. More like "Taking an obscure recently unclassified document and turning it into evidence of a mass conspiracy to put everyone in prison camps".

I remember Alex mentioning how the New World Order is a group of men plotting to take control of everything. Then he would turn around and say it's only a few people who meet in secret to discuss how the world will end. Then he would turn around and say there are tens of thousands if not millions of people who are in control and will set out to destroy the rest of humanity. Now which is it, Alex?

I previously mentioned what sets a conspiracy theorist (let alone a truther) apart from the rest of society - they really, truly have nothing to say. Yet to some people, CTs present something very valuable if you're the gullible type.

I remember Alex mentioning how the New World Order is a group of men plotting to take control of everything. Then he would turn around and say it's only a few people who meet in secret to discuss how the world will end. Then he would turn around and say there are tens of thousands if not millions of people who are in control and will set out to destroy the rest of humanity. Now which is it, Alex?

I previously mentioned what sets a conspiracy theorist (let alone a truther) apart from the rest of society - they really, truly have nothing to say. Yet to some people, CTs present something very valuable if you're the gullible type.

You hit it perfectly when you said it felt like you knew something that everyone else didn't know. This concept makes the average persons otherwise uneventful life feel like it is the plot of some sort of spy movie. That kind of excitement can be hard for a lot of people to pass up, then once they are part of movie, it is hard to get out of it.

__________________Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

I have read that book! And yes, Shermer hits it out of the park with conspiracy theories.

What should also trigger a raised eyebrow is to look back at the early days of the internet. Remember chain messages? You would receive an e-mail telling you not to lick envelopes because cock roaches lay their eggs on the adhesive or that Coca-cola is used to clean battery corrosion? All Loose Change and Zeitgeist did was raise the chain message bar.

Anyone can come up with this stuff and post it online and say it is fact. The question is, who will take initiative to decipher between BS and actual research.

Haha, im not old enough to remember those days! I see what you are saying though, the research behind the facts is important.

You hit it perfectly when you said it felt like you knew something that everyone else didn't know. This concept makes the average persons otherwise uneventful life feel like it is the plot of some sort of spy movie. That kind of excitement can be hard for a lot of people to pass up, then once they are part of movie, it is hard to get out of it.

Trying to show any level of reason to a Truther is like trying to get a cock roach to speak. I have yet to engage any type of proper debate without getting insulted, belittled, or told that I'm on the "losing side of the debate". It's at a point now where I should just resort to the way Tom Green responded to Greg Gutfield.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I used to believe in ghosts once upon a time. And then one day I came to a realization:

Ghosts are supposedly spirits of the deceased that have lingering attachments to this world, right? Then there should be ghosts pretty much everywhere, in every mode of dress from every time period. And yet there only ever seems to be ghosts from very specific time periods that seem to conform to people's ideas of what a ghost is (which seems to be around the Victorian period, mostly) in very limited places. Why is it there are never reports of ghosts from more recent times?

And on the line of questioning went until I no longer believed in ghosts.

__________________The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one.

Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

Trying to show any level of reason to a Truther is like trying to get a cock roach to speak. I have yet to engage any type of proper debate without getting insulted, belittled, or told that I'm on the "losing side of the debate". It's at a point now where I should just resort to the way Tom Green responded to Greg Gutfield.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Perfect response. It was eloquent, scholarly, and subtle at the same time.

__________________Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

Hey, dc1971, Michael Shermer has sent a Twitter (tweet?) saying, ""From 9/11 Truther and believer in all things conspiratorial to rational skeptic. An honest, self-reflective narrative:" with a link to this thread.

Hey, dc1971, Michael Shermer has sent a Twitter (tweet?) saying, ""From 9/11 Truther and believer in all things conspiratorial to rational skeptic. An honest, self-reflective narrative:" with a link to this thread.